Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

In that the iMac displays are some of the best in the industry in a very competitive price (competitive displays cost nearly the same for the display alone).

View on HN

The biggest problem is that the effective lifespan of a good display is much longer than a high performance computer. Even ignoring the compromises made to the computer to allow for the two to be merged, you are simply wasting money upgrading the monitor every time the computer needs to be upgraded. By attaching the two together this machine is even less practical to upgrade than the old trashcan Mac Pro.

Yup. I bought the 30" ACD in 2006. It's still running fine now, though a bit of image retention is creeping in.

I bought my 30" ACD's in 2008, 2009 and 2011. Two have died. My last one is starting to wig out. The new 5k LG monitor is brighter and sharper, but it's only about 3/4 the physical screen space. Funny how some things go backwards and other things go forwards.

My 3 monitors have been used for 4 generations of Macs, though. Definitely agree that monitors live longer than the underlying computer.

Well, not the best argument for monitor's staying power.

Compared to 2006's ACD, new monitors have bigger brightness, better saturation, far wider color gamut, better viewing angles, AND double+ the resolution.

In today's world of disposable gear, I think lasting over 11 years is pretty darn good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com